Monster Hunter Tri

[StriderShinryu]

If you played MH at all you'd not make the comparison to Diablo. MH series has never been about gear, yes you can't kill the last boss with the starter weapon, but the game is more about skill than gear. The only goal in the game is not to get better gear, but to kill monsters.

I stand corrected then. Don't take this the wrong way as I'm honestly curious about it; what is the purpose to killing the monsters? Are they that cool and imaginatively designed that killing them is worth the effort on it's own? Is there a story to follow related to the monster killing? You say you don't kill them for the gear or loot, but do they offer some other sort of "tangible" reward? Maybe getting a solid answer to this question would not only answer my questions but also help some of those who just don't get why MH is popular.

 

[shadowmarth]

Allot of people are still whining and while i will offer no opinion on the quality of a game which i haven't played and whos only review is being criticised i will point out a couple of things.
...
4. His other points: all most no one is going on about the other points he brought up such as the poor equpiment managing system and the resource gathering. Are this just ignored while you bang on about how long he played the game for?

lol the equipment management gripe is so off-base it's not even a thing. I mean on what grounds can someone gripe about how a character has to go HOME to change like 50 pounds of armor, or how you can't carry an alternate weapon when the one you've brought clearly wieghs a ton? While other games let you tote a closet worth of clothing and a garbage-can sized rocket launcher that just spring into existence when you hit the hotkey, you can't tell me with a straight face that this ridiculous immersion-breaker from 1980's roleplaying games is an important feature for every videogame to emulate.

It's not like there's a "right" or "wrong" kind of weapon for 90% of the monsters you hunt, though depending on your play style some might feel that way... and that's a matter of trying different things and learning the ropes again and we know how much respect having to invest some effort for a game gets around here.

Also the equipment switching isn't a mistake. It's there for a reason. If you could switch weapons in the middle of a fight, then you could do a bunch of weird shit. Like being able to break every single part of a monster in one run, completely alone. Or switching resistances up on Barroth depending on his status. Or using a Paralysis weapon, then switching to an elemental or raw one when it got paralyzed.

 

[Krimson Kun]

If you played MH at all you'd not make the comparison to Diablo. MH series has never been about gear, yes you can't kill the last boss with the starter weapon, but the game is more about skill than gear. The only goal in the game is not to get better gear, but to kill monsters.

I stand corrected then. Don't take this the wrong way as I'm honestly curious about it; what is the purpose to killing the monsters? Are they that cool and imaginatively designed that killing them is worth the effort on it's own? Is there a story to follow related to the monster killing? You say you don't kill them for the gear or loot, but do they offer some other sort of "tangible" reward? Maybe getting a solid answer to this question would not only answer my questions but also help some of those who just don't get why MH is popular.

There is a story line, a very very weak one. Basically you're this hunter sent off to fight off monsters attacking certain towns, and the final bosses(the Elder Dragons) are strong enough to destroy countries but that's all.

Purpose of killing monsters are 1.its fun 2. sense of accomplishment.

When you kill a gigantic sea dragon that shoots lightning with a gigantic sword made out of, well either monster bones or metal, its something I can't really explain, but it does feel good.

 

[shadowmarth]

I stand corrected then. Don't take this the wrong way as I'm honestly curious about it; what is the purpose to killing the monsters? Are they that cool and imaginatively designed that killing them is worth the effort on it's own? Is there a story to follow related to the monster killing? You say you don't kill them for the gear or loot, but do they offer some other sort of "tangible" reward? Maybe getting a solid answer to this question would not only answer my questions but also help some of those who just don't get why MH is popular.

Absolutely, the point of advancing through the game is to play the game. I know that achievement junkies and MMO players are used to other objectives, but not this game. Granted, if you ARE into that kind of shit, the equipment system is more than expansive enough to scratch that itch. It's just really not necessary to beat the game.

Killing the monsters is fun, but the main reason to kill the monsters REPEATEDLY is for loot in order to upgrade shit. Basically there's as much of a grind as you want in this game, and if you want to skip the grind, just stick with a single weapon tree or two and that will cut down the required loot by enough that you'll rarely have to grind a monster more than a few times.

 

[Krimson Kun]

I stand corrected then. Don't take this the wrong way as I'm honestly curious about it; what is the purpose to killing the monsters? Are they that cool and imaginatively designed that killing them is worth the effort on it's own? Is there a story to follow related to the monster killing? You say you don't kill them for the gear or loot, but do they offer some other sort of "tangible" reward? Maybe getting a solid answer to this question would not only answer my questions but also help some of those who just don't get why MH is popular.

Absolutely, the point of advancing through the game is to play the game. I know that achievement junkies and MMO players are used to other objectives, but not this game. Granted, if you ARE into that kind of shit, the equipment system is more than expansive enough to scratch that itch. It's just really not necessary to beat the game.

Killing the monsters is fun, but the main reason to kill the monsters REPEATEDLY is for loot in order to upgrade shit. Basically there's as much of a grind as you want in this game, and if you want to skip the grind, just stick with a single weapon tree or two and that will cut down the required loot by enough that you'll rarely have to grind a monster more than a few times.

disregard my post and read this one please

 

[t_rexaur]

I stand corrected then. Don't take this the wrong way as I'm honestly curious about it; what is the purpose to killing the monsters? Are they that cool and imaginatively designed that killing them is worth the effort on it's own? Is there a story to follow related to the monster killing? You say you don't kill them for the gear or loot, but do they offer some other sort of "tangible" reward? Maybe getting a solid answer to this question would not only answer my questions but also help some of those who just don't get why MH is popular.

There is a loose story in the single player.

Spoiler

Cozy little fishing village gets hit with Earthquakes, assumes big ass sea serpent is to blame, enter you as aspiring Hunter looking for work, cue missions from hunters guild and from the village that get progressively harder while you get better at the game to take on the serpent, kill said serpent, find out it wasn't the cause of the Earthquakes, kill some more things for the hunters guild you work for while you find out what is causing them, find out it's a huuuuge serpent easily 5 times bigger than the one you thought, drive the huge-ass monster from the village, save the day, roll end credits.

Online you just kill things for the lulz and loot.

 

[Mindmaker]

For the first point, Lord of The Rings Online is an easy example. The main draw of the game is not raiding or grinding, it's "living" in Middle Earth and following the epic storyline (both through your own personal epic quests as well as the widely known LOTR storyline).

Early game in LOTRO as a Hobbit: Nearly get captured/killed by a Nazghul, try to save a doomed town from a brigand attack, be let loose into the world where you can pursue quests, Epic or not, in a variety of areas or just head off on your own and explore or Role Play.

Point taken.
When writing my post I mostly had thought of WoW, AoC and similar ones.
But you have to admit LOTRO never gotten near that popular as the beforementioned ones.

Early game in MH as it's been explained here: Go out into an instanced world, collect some stuff, kill some little monsters, collect more stuff, kill some big cool monsters.

Well if you apply such a simplistice view, it matches.
Combat mechanics on the other hand are completely different.
Same with the items. All you need in Diablo is equipment and healing pots. The crafting system is very minimalistic(mixing a piece of armor with perfects gems yielded a piece of armor with random properties. Monster hunter on the other hand goes far more in depth.

Oh, and while Epic Stories and Role Playing don't appeal to the masses, neither does repetitive grinding and looting.

Oh it does. World of Warcraft has been a huge succes, and both endgame paths(PVE&PVP) lead to a neverending grindfest.

As to the Diablo comparison, I think it's quite obvious. An action based but mainly gear oriented RPG crafted around completing simple quests with the focus on entering instances to gather bigger and better loot than was found in the last instance. That statement could easily be used to describe both Diablo or MH, could it not?

Look above.

 

[milskidasith]

Here's the thing about all of the complaints:

10 hour tutorial: It's barely an hour to get to the first boss. Yeah, it's an exaggeration, but that's taking "Reasonable, if a but annoying for some" into "OK, this game could be the second coming and still be bad because of it."

Only swapping weapons at the house/not being able to swap weapons in the field: Why should you be able to swap weapons in the field? It's not like it's hard to kill the minion monsters, and killing the boss with one weapon is fine, plus online weapon selection is all about the role you are going to play.

Plus, swapping on the field could lead to exploits to monster resistances (Status effects take more status "damage" to occur the more it happens, so swapping weapons would lead to just going through all the status effects, and it's hard to balance that). I'm not saying it's a good thing you can't swap, it's just not absurdly bad like people are making it out to be.

Paying for quests: The amount you pay for a quest is like 100 even for lategame quests.

With the fishing boat, you are hauling in multiple items worth ten thousand every four quests, monster drops are worth hundreds each and you get about a dozen per mission, and you get a few thousand just for the mission rewards. The paying for quests thing is stupid, sure, but it doesn't hinder the game at all, and it never forces you to grind unless you somehow have no items at all, and I'm not even sure if that's possible.

 

[NoblePhilistineFox]

I just snipped you, that must hurt T_T

its a matter of oppinion,
just because someone sais youre right doesnt mean you are.
you can hate it if you want, just dont be haughty and talk down to others because we have a different oppinion.
besides, Great Jaggi sucks, Gigginox for life.

OT:
thats was funny as hell.
although the tutorial didnt take 10 hours, only took me like 2...
but that still is alot for a tutorial ill admit.
I didnt even pay attention the the text though, because I have this nifty little thing called "instruction manual" that gives me the same information in less then 5 minutes.

also, I wonder how many people are gonna say things like "it gets better with cha-cha"
or "get to the rathian and it will get funner"
well ill tell you somehing, THAT LITTLE CHA-CHA FREAK TAKES THE FUN OUT OF THE GAME!!!!
and the rathian crosses that line between "difficult" and "glass in your urine"
solo-ing the Lagiacrus is easier for f**ks sake.
thats my little rant on the subject ^_^

 

[milskidasith]

I just snipped you, that must hurt T_T

its a matter of oppinion,
just because someone sais youre right doesnt mean you are.
you can hate it if you want, just dont be haughty and talk down to others because we have a different oppinion.
besides, Great Jaggi sucks, Gigginox for life.

OT:
thats was funny as hell.
although the tutorial didnt take 10 hours, only took me like 2...
but that still is alot for a tutorial ill admit.
I didnt even pay attention the the text though, because I have this nifty little thing called "instruction manual" that gives me the same information in less then 5 minutes.

also, I wonder how many people are gonna say things like "it gets better with cha-cha"
or "get to the rathian and it will get funner"
well ill tell you somehing, THAT LITTLE CHA-CHA FREAK TAKES THE FUN OUT OF THE GAME!!!!
and the rathian crosses that line between "difficult" and "glass in your urine"
solo-ing the Lagiacrus is easier for f**ks sake.
thats my little rant on the subject ^_^

I never had trouble with the Rathian... it's one of the easiest bosses in the game to solo with a switch axe, and you can easily break every part as well.

 

[Azagthoth666]

I feel like most of Yahtzee's complaints are just because this game is the polar opposite of his preference. This game works like WoW. You dont truly enjoy it till your a powerful high level character and even then soloing is the least fun part. This game is all about jumping into the multiplayer and hunting down monsters online where each character has a distinct weapon with a distinct purpose. If one weapon was good for everything it would defy the way this game is meant to be played. Because of this i think Yahtzee was just really bad at the game and when you totally suck at a game you dont enjoy it regardless of what game it is.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Oh, and while Epic Stories and Role Playing don't appeal to the masses, neither does repetitive grinding and looting.

Oh it does. World of Warcraft has been a huge succes, and both endgame paths(PVE&PVP) lead to a neverending grindfest.

True, but WoW does actually have a storyline, an extremely expansive world to explore, millions of other people to interact with, many opportunities for RP, etc. There are likely a ton of people who play it for the grind, but there's probably just as many who play it for the "fluff." Of course, given the juggernaut that it is, there's probably just as many players who who play it just because all of their friends do. Though this is definitely getting off topic.

 

[Grandleon]

OT: I don't get why so many people are focused on the "10 hours" phrase. Near as I can tell, even if doesn't take 10 hours then there are other problems he mentioned. There's the "Can only change your equipment at home" problem (which is probably a pain in the ass), the "Lock into quests and can't change your weapon" problem (probably also a pain in the ass), the "pay to start quest" problem (which is one of the dumbest gimmicks I have EVER heard of), the "item gathering either takes stupid amounts of time or reduces the game to SimOffice" problem (Which is not what one would probably want from a giant monster hunting game) and the "Item degredation" problem (which sounds like the worst parts of morrowind and fallout 3 combined).

All these are other problems that he mentioned and yet everyone is completely hung up on him just saying "10 hours" when it's probably just exaggeration like he does in almost every review! Maybe those people just didn't read past the third paragraph before jumping to the forums to complain. Now, I haven't played the game, but I highly doubt I would want to play a game that sounds this inconvenient. Besides, I would probably wet my pants at the giant sea monsters.

Being able to switch out equipment mid quest would be game breaking. Being able to switch weapon types mid-fight, especially, would be like changing your class mid-fight in another RPG. Each weapon confers different strengths, and this is intended to be a coop game. The strength of being a gunner is in being able to swap ammo types on the fly.

The only time the lock-in thing ever gets annoying is online if you go and accept a quest, having forgotten to get food buffs and the correct weapon for the job. Though I think they do that so that other people know what you're taking with you so they can adjust if you're missing something in the group.

Item gathering is not terribly important. You'll need to do a bit at the start, but it loses necessity very quickly. Between the farm, fishery, vendors, and NPC traders, you can easily stockpile components for hours of uninterrupted giant wyvern hunting. About the only thing you can't find a shortcut around is mining, but you don't have to craft equipment that requires ore if you don't want to. Most equipment is crafted from monster parts you get from just playing the game. I have hundreds of components for traps, bombs, and other useful tools and I most certainly did not hand-gather the stuff.

Finally, equipment degradation does not exist. Weapons will lose sharpness, but one whetstone later and it's at full sharpness again. There's no permanent loss in equipment what-so-ever. The sharpness system is there for a few reasons. First of all very high end weapons will have blue, white, or even purple sharpness levels. These confer a powerful multiplier to your attack damage, but they usually only last a few hits before the level drops. High sharpness levels also allow your weapon to pass through armored plate without bouncing. Another reason there's a sharpness system is to reward/punish for attacking vulnerable spots versus armored body parts. The more calculated and accurate you are with your attacks, the more damage and better sharpness you'll maintain before having to retreat a bit to repair your weapon.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Ah ha! At last I have something to say that contradicts you!

I actually think a weapons degradation system could work well, depending on the feel of gameplay your going for and how you implement it. Remember STALKER: Shadows of Chernobyl. That game had a weapon degradation system and I actually thought it fit really well with the feel of a world breaking down around you. Of course, the big difference between STALKER and this game is apparently the fact that you could fire more than ten shots of your weapon without it becoming shit. Actually, in STALKER, there was one gun that I picked up early in the game and I kept it pretty much throughout, watching it slowly degrade as the game went on and worrying that it would give out on me at a critical moment. It made me rethink how I used it, because it was such a freaking awesome weapon I didn't want to loose it. So, I'd find ways to avoid having to use it if I could and I'd make sure that every shot with it counted. That was awesome. Of course, by the end of the game, it had become next to useless, because the frame had gotten bent, causing the accuracy to go way down, but by that point, it was almost the end and I was fighting guys who had much better weapons that I had to pick up anyway in order to fight them. I actually thought that worked well.
So, weapon degradation can work if you implement it well.

Really, that's all I can make an argument for, and I'm not really arguing in favor of the game you're reviewing, so maybe that doesn't count.

Actually, what you've just described sounds like your basic limited ammo game design element. Your gun essentially had a limited amount of ammo, and you had to choose how to ration it. That makes a little bit more sense. What Yahtzee is referring to (I think) is more a degradation system for melee weapons like swords and axes and the like. That just sucks ass, because you're expected to keep using the weapon repeatedly, but you have to stop and repair it.

It sucks less if it takes a while to actually degrade, because you can basically use it for the whole mission and then repair it when you get back to town between missions. But it's still retarded, because now it's basically just a little checkbox on your "list of shit to do whenever I'm in town". It doesn't add anything to the gameplay; it's just annoying. Just get rid of it. It's not fun. At all. Yeah, it's less realistic, but you know what? Fuck realism. Reality sucks and we need less of it in video games, especially bloody fantasy ones with giant fucking monsters.

Thank you, that makes my argument perfectly. If I wanted realism, I'd go outside... >_>

 

[Azagthoth666]

Following my previous post I think people take Yahtzee too seriously. If you truly based buying a game or not on his reviews you should only ever play Psychonauts and nothing else. His reviews (except for Psychonauts) are always to point out the holes in a game that make up its bad part. In this review, he just didnt have any really true information. I suppose i dont see his point of view having played previous MH titles but to someone who knows the game most of his complaints (presented in a rather bitchy form) are nonexistant.

 

[Omikron009]

I thought I (and a few friends) were the only people who knew how much icy hot hurt when applied to....sensitive areas. Wow.

 

[shadowmarth]

Actually, what you've just described sounds like your basic limited ammo game design element. Your gun essentially had a limited amount of ammo, and you had to choose how to ration it. That makes a little bit more sense. What Yahtzee is referring to (I think) is more a degradation system for melee weapons like swords and axes and the like. That just sucks ass, because you're expected to keep using the weapon repeatedly, but you have to stop and repair it.

It sucks less if it takes a while to actually degrade, because you can basically use it for the whole mission and then repair it when you get back to town between missions. But it's still retarded, because now it's basically just a little checkbox on your "list of shit to do whenever I'm in town". It doesn't add anything to the gameplay; it's just annoying. Just get rid of it. It's not fun. At all. Yeah, it's less realistic, but you know what? Fuck realism. Reality sucks and we need less of it in video games, especially bloody fantasy ones with giant fucking monsters.

Except that sharpness resets after missions and you never have to "repair" in town. The sharpness system was also originally introduced as a balancing mechanism between the weapons, such that some would require more, others less, and that was just a consideration when you selected your weapon. In most fights you'll maybe need to sharpen twice if you have a weapon with half-decent sharpness. And given that the monsters will change areas every once in a while, you can usually just do it then. It takes 5 seconds, and then you're back to chasing the monster.

 

[Quaidis]

After the 1* quests, 90% of quests are "Go kill this big ass monster" and then "Go kill this bigger ass monster" with the occasional "capture this big ass monster" quest. The other 10% are quests where it says "Go roam around and collect materials if you need them" where you literally have to do nothing to complete the quest.

Eh... maybe I'll have to have a look at some gameplay footage. It still doesn't sound like my cuppa, but I appreciate the old school try. I don't want to receive quests, or talk to NPCs, I just want big battles. I'm extremely simple that way. Closer would basically be, I dunno... Mortal Kombat with behemoths or something, only with a free-roaming arena for me to cower in. Maybe literally an arena. Maybe it could be like Gladiator, but with bigger and meaner monsters someone has collected that you have to fight your way out to win your freedom. And maybe the ultimate boss is Roger Ebert on a dais. Aw, man, now I'm even more disappointed.

The problem is that I know what I wanted the game to be, which was based on me not doing any research whatsoever beyond seeing the occasional commercial spot, and the game itself wasn't that. At least, not really. And that's my fault, not the game's, so it's cool that so many people seem to enjoy it.

On the plus side, the review did make me want to play Harvest Moon again.

In the 'story-mode' single-player, you go on quests to fight the bigger beef. Once you do, they show up near your home out of nowhere ready to rip your face off. That velociraptor on steroids you killed by the skin of your teeth? His relatives took up residence at the nearby creek. That monolithic electrified lizard? He's now near your favorite fishing spot.

There is also an 'arena' mode which sounds exactly like what you want. You are given a small amount of items and allowed to choose a weapon and armor, then are sent straight away at a 'boss' monster like in gladiatorial combat.

Lastly, there is multiplayer, which lets you either pick some friends or throws you with a club of random people and you go out to slaughter something much bigger and uglier than you would see in single player.


And yes, the review also made me want to dig out HarvestMoon. Or, Or! Ruin Factory. Now that was a good game.


Edit - alright, I admit. Story-mode is a poor choice of words as there is not much of a story. But that is generally what single-player is classified as these days. I cannot win them all.

 

[mike1921]

Alright, yahtzee said "you can buy a version of the game with a classic controller" and wikipedia agrees with him. But I can't find that version anywhere and I'm not paying $20 for a controller I'd only use on a rental.

 

[shadowmarth]

Alright, yahtzee said "you can buy a version of the game with a classic controller" and wikipedia agrees with him. But I can't find that version anywhere and I'm not paying $20 for a controller I'd only use on a rental.

If you have a Wii you should get one anyway. They're quite nice. And I'm fairly certain that the bundle was limited release, and most of those went to pre-orders, so if you really want one, you'll have to look around a bit...